Deduction of Nutritional Supplements/Aspirin on Physician's Recommendation?

Et tu, Harlan? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

That you would borrow one of those unwanted and unnecessary E's!

Now had you mentioned Irish whiskey, useful for making piping hot coffee more drinkable, no one would have noticed.

But it's prescribed by a doctor for a specific medical condition.

But importing the drug/medicine from Canada -- is that illegal?

That does not make it deductible on Schedule A:

2009 Pub 502 page 12 Medicines

You can include in medical expenses amounts you pay for prescribed medicines and drugs. A prescribed drug is one that requires a prescription by a doctor for its use by an individual. You can also include amounts you pay for insulin. Except for insulin, you cannot include in medical expenses amounts you pay for a drug that is not pre- scribed.

For an individual. without whatever permits or licenses might be required? I suspect so, based on how Pub 402 phrases this.

But Arthur, couldn't you also interpret 502 as allowing the deduction of certain supplements that do not fall under that paragraph you quoted:

========================================Nutritional Supplements You cannot include in medical expenses the cost of nutritional supplements, vitamins, herbal supplements, ?natural medicines,? etc. unless they are recommended by a medical practitioner as treatment for a specific medical condition diagnosed by a physician. ======================================= Since this paragraph uses the term "unless", does that not imply that if they are "recommended" (note the use of recommended and not prescribed) that they can be deducted?

So now the questions with regard to deductibility of your Iron would be 1. Is your iron supplement a "nutritional supplement, vitamin, etc"? 2. Was it recommended by your medical practitioner for a "specific medical condition" that was "diagnosed by a physician".

It seems to me that if the answers to both those questions was "Yes", then the cost would be deductible.

--ron

OK -- I'll back off and say if you had a physician's written statement that described the speciic medical condition this supplement was designed to aleviate or stabilize, how it would do that, and listed the amount and dosage, I would go along with that.

The above sounds reasonable. But I started to read the actual law. I think this is section 213. Where in this short text does it say that nutritional supplements are allowed?

They only talked of prescribed drugs:

(3) Prescribed drug.? The term ?prescribed drug? means a drug or biological which requires a prescription of a physician for its use by an individual.

The question is not whether you will back off, but whether the IRS will back off.

You'd think I had Vanna White at my beck and call, what with using the "e". But then we've already established on this bored that I can't spel.

ChEAr$, Harlan

I'm no attorney, but I would think that would fall under the category of

"medical care"

There is a "Limitation with respect to medicine and drugs". But a nutritional supplement is not a "medicine or drug". If it were, the IRS would not have to have regulations stating that the use cannot be deducted unless certain conditions are met.

--ron

I'm confused. First there seemed to be general, if reluctant, agreement that the law says OTC items were deductible on Schedule A if they were required for treatment of a specific disease. Then a couple posters stated emphatically that my calcium supplements for osteopenia/ osteoporsis wouldn't qualify. So which is it, guys? Over the years, I've seen the passage that the yea-sayers are quoting somewhere online, but of course when I call IRS they claim no knowledge of it. I'm only talking about a couple hundred $ if that, but every little bit helps.

Over the counter medication, even though prescribed by a doctor, is not deductible.

Even if it is to treat a specific medical problem rather than to better general health?

Still not deductible. However, some FSAs may cover it.

But it seems that "nutritional supplements" are deductible, else why would there be this in Pub 502?

====================Nutritional Supplements You cannot include in medical expenses the cost of nutritional supplements, vitamins, herbal supplements, ?natural medicines,? etc. unless they are recommended by a medical practitioner as treatment for a specific medical condition diagnosed by a physician. =================== In jo's case, he has *specific medical conditions* (osteoporosis/osteopenia and Sjögren's syndrome).

His calcium supplements and various wetting agents were apparently

*recommended by a medical practitioner as treatment* for these conditions.

So wouldn't the question would be whether jo's non-prescription calcium supplements for osteopenia/osteoporosis and wetting agents for Sjögrens are a "nutritional supplement, vitamin, herbal supplement, natural medicine, etc."?

--ron

messagenews:Xns9CE1F1C116D65spamtraplexregiacom@130.133.1.4...

If not deductible for specific diseases, why is it even talked about as such in 502? Calcium isn't an OTC drug, it's a nutritional supplement BTW. No FSA --- I'm on Medicare and long past working ability.

jo

messagenews:Xns9CE1F1C116D65spamtraplexregiacom@130.133.1.4...

A Revenue Ruling in 2003 (2003-58) asked: (1) Are amounts paid by an individual for medicines that may be purchased without a prescription of a physician deductible under § 213 of the Internal Revenue Code?

(2) Are amounts paid by an individual for equipment, supplies, or diagnostic devices that may be purchased without a prescription of a physician deductible under § 213?

Answered:

(1) Amounts paid by an individual for medicines or drugs that may be purchased without a prescription of a physician are not taken into account pursuant to § 213(b) and are not deductible under §

213. [Note there is an exception for insulin.]

(2) Amounts paid by an individual for equipment, supplies, or diagnostic devices may be expenses for medical care deductible under § 213 (subject to the other limitations of that section).

In this instance it was referring to that part of the section (Section 213(d) that allows a deduction for "the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or for the purpose of affecting any structure or function of the body,".

I interpret all of this to mean that nonprescription medicines and drugs (don't ask me for the definition of what is a nonprescription medicine or drug) are not deductible. Other items that a doctor prescribes as treatment for a specific medical condition, such as nutritional supplements, vitamins, herbal supplements, ?natural medicines,? etc. are tax deductible.

[snip]

Unfortunately, that analysis (the IRS's, not yours) is not supported either by the Code or the Regulations. The Code only says that if it's medicine or drugs, they must be prescribed. There is no requirement that they be prescription only.

It would arguably be valid for the IRS to issue regulations saying that medicine and drugs would have to be by prescription only to be deductible. But the regulations don't say that. The regulations say,

"The term medicine and drugs shall include only items which are legally procured and which are generally accepted as falling within the category of medicine and drugs (whether or not requiring a prescription)." Treas. Reg. § 1.213-1(e)(1)(6)(2).

Seems to me that any revenue ruling that says drugs must be prescription only is simply wrong.

The first thing we look at is the code. Sec 213 is quite clear on prescribed drugs:

213(b) Limitation with respect to medicine and drugs An amount paid during the taxable year for medicine or a drug shall be taken into account under subsection (a) only if such medicine or drug is a prescribed drug or is insulin. 213(d) Definitions (3) Prescribed drug. - The term ''prescribed drug'' means a drug or biological which requires a prescription of a physician for its use by an individual. (4) Physician. - The term ''physician'' has the meaning given to such term by section 1861(r) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(r)).

Lastly, those regulations are as old as Methuselah. The code was changed after those Regs were published.

Thanks. I'm embarrassed that I didn't catch that.

That's irrelevant. To the extent there are no regulations properly interpreting the statute, any reasonable interpretation would suffice until a court says otherwise.

In this case, however, as you noted, the statute is clear, so the regulation that is inconsistent with it should be ignored.

Why we may be in agreement as to the definition, I think you may have misinterpreted my point about the regs being old. All I was trying to say was that for Sec. 213, the Regulations were out of date as changes to Title 26, court decisions and the IRS's own rulings have superseded them. THis is true for awhole bunch of Regulations. If you relied upon the Regs for Sec. 152 as to who is a dependent child, you would never get it right as our friends in Congress continue to provide us with a moving target.